Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Vegetarianism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Vegitarians cheat themselves of health benefits of animal fat and protein. They're probably more susceptible to disease and will likely live a shorter life. Their motives are usually the result of gross misinformation. Rather than date a vegitarian I'd lean toward education.

Okay, this is completely off the topic of romantic gifts (sorry, Jennifer!) but I really have to correct this statement about vegetarians. But at the risk of being rude, I don't think it's quite as rude as telling someone who to date based on their perfectly healthy dietary preferences, JDX. Sheeesh!

There are plenty of fats in plants. As for protein, the building blocks for them that you need to survive consist about 22 different amino acids. There are roughly 8-9 amino acids that humans cannot synthesize on their own, which must be obtained from the diet. None of these are found exclusively in animal protein, and a full complement is found in beans and rice. in fact, there are tons of genetic engineering projects going on to engineer plants to produce very high levels of these amino acids. A vegetarian person, even a vegan person, who eats enough beans and rice can be as perfectly healthy as, and probably healthier than (as a result of other health choices) an omnivore. Furthermore, many people eat far more animal protein than is necessary or healthy.

People have different motivations for becoming vegEtarian. Some don't want to eat animal tissue for whatever reason (that's their choice), some don't want to eat animal products that have been treated with growth hormones (for health reasons), and some are concerned about the tremendous amount of energy that meat requires to produce (and they are correct). How is any of this a result of a lack of education?

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, this is completely off the topic of romantic gifts (sorry, Jennifer!) but I really have to correct this statement about vegetarians. But at the risk of being rude, I don't think it's quite as rude as telling someone who to date based on their perfectly healthy dietary preferences, JDX. Sheeesh!

Subjective conclusion. Actually I only mentioned the action "I" would take. The reader is free to exercise his/her own judgement. But, I suggest learing some facts before jumping to any conclusion, after all, that's what objectivists do.

There are plenty of fats in plants. As for protein, the building blocks for them that you need to survive consist about 22 different amino acids. There are roughly 8-9 amino acids that humans cannot synthesize on their own, which must be obtained from the diet. None of these are found exclusively in animal protein, and a full complement is found in beans and rice. in fact, there are tons of genetic engineering projects going on to engineer plants to produce very high levels of these amino acids. A vegetarian person, even a vegan person, who eats enough beans and rice can be as perfectly healthy as, and probably healthier than (as a result of other health choices) an omnivore. Furthermore, many people eat far more animal protein than is necessary or healthy.

People have different motivations for becoming vegEtarian. Some don't want to eat animal tissue for whatever reason (that's their choice), some don't want to eat animal products that have been treated with growth hormones (for health reasons), and some are concerned about the tremendous amount of energy that meat requires to produce (and they are correct). How is any of this a result of a lack of education?

When I began a high animal (mainly beef cooked rare to medium rare) protein/fat, low carbohydrate diet the first thing I noticed was an abundance of energy and improved mental clarity. I also noticed that the occasional chest pain I used to incur was no longer evident.

Here's a couple of excerpts with links to their articles:

"Vegetarians have always claimed they get all the folic acid they need from vegetables. Well, they don't."

http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd...dd20020723.html for the rest of the article.

Another excerpt:

"Despite its status as darling of the vegetarian "meat martyrs," soy is NOT a health food. In fact, it's neither healthy nor is it food, if your definition of that word includes some measure of actual nourishment. And it isn't merely worthless as a food, it's downright harmful. Hundreds of studies have linked soy proteins and derivatives to:

* Heart disease

* Cancer, especially of the breast

* Allergies and reduced immunity

* Thyroid dysfunction

* Malnutrition and digestive problems

* Nutrient deficiencies, including calcium (vital for the prevention of osteoporosis)

* Reproductive disorders, cognitive and mental decline, and more"

Complete article here: http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd...dd20050401.html

Another excerpt:

"You are also not getting the truth from Jane Brody of The New York Times, Dean Ornish, and other muesli munchers. A pure vegetarian diet is a shortcut to the grave. It's not the vegetables and fruits that kill, its the starch and sugar compounded by the lack of animal fat and animal protein in the diet."

Article: http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd...d20030110b.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What should I eat?"

I find this question fascinating because answering it involves many philosophical issues -- both epistemological and ethical. I have found an answer that works beautifully for me.

Especially recently, I have learned to not prescribe a solution for others, just as I would not prescribe a particular work of fiction to others strictly on the pleasure I received from it. Others must make their choices within the context of their values, their personal experiences, and their general knowledge.

Here is what works for me. I call it, for lack of a better term, a "gatherer's diet." (By "diet" I mean a regular pattern of eating.) In volume, I now eat roughly:

- 1% animal products (1 T/day of either liver or clams).

- 49% starch (typically either roots, such as potatoes, or rice).

- 25% vegetables.

- 25% fruit.

I am 61. I am now very lean. I have no heart disease, no cancer, no diabetes -- and no other medical problems (so far!) except a light case of emphysema, probably caused by heavy smoking 40 years ago.

Thirty years ago, age c. 29-30, I had classic heart disease symptoms. I got rid of them by going to a low-fat diet (less than 10% of calories), on a Pritikin type program (mostly "whole" plant foods with some very lean animal products). I lost 65 pounds. The heart disease symptoms went away and have never returned.

I also had "-itis" problems (iritis, dermatitis, arthritis, bursitis, tendonitis, and colitis) for almost 40 years. About three years ago, they all went away (except a tiny bit of remaining skin problem) when I switched to a low protein (c. 50 grams/day) strictly plant-based diet. The one thing missing was Vitamin B12. Once cured of the "-itis" problems, I began adding 1 T daily of B12-rich meat (liver or clams) back into my diet. According to calculations by several doctors, my diet is now complete for all nutrients.

(Reducing the quantity -- NOT variety -- of protein, that is, amino acids, was the initial solution, but the general solution was reduction of acid-producing foods, as predicted by Potential Renal Acid Load lists, not the lists composed from ash tests of foods.)

For the first time in my life, I am healthy (so far as I know!). I attribute that mostly to improved diet: low fat, low protein, wide variety, and mostly plant foods (as little refined as practical). And now that I am healthy, I can exercise fully: typically 1 hour/day of walking, 1 hour/day of bicycling, some stair-climbing, and posture and strength exercises daily.) I exercise for both pleasure and health, the latter, again, based on my understanding and experiences.

I know how I arrived at my conclusion: through years of experimenting on myself, through reading writings of medical people I trust (generally), and through personal advice by medical people I trust (generally), such as: the Pritikin people; Drs. Ornish, McDougall, and Fuhrman; the backers of diets such as the Okinawan diet and the Mediterranean diet; and local doctors -- all in varying degrees. All these sources differed in various ways, but the overall pattern of their recommendations was clear: Wide variety, mostly plant foods, low fat, low protein, "whole" foods, with little or no added fat.

All this involves the issue of the "epistemology of indirect knowledge." That is, very little of what I "know" about a diet that is proper for me comes from direct, first-hand experience. Much of what I "know" comes initially from the testimony of others I trust. Whom do I trust? Those who say things that fit with my own personal experiences.

Because I followed such a long winding path, I never expect now to convince another person to change his diet to mine. I can only offer my experiences as a possible solution. Others will make their decisions. And each of us will take the consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences for most people won't be evident until many years have passed. The body is amazingly flexible on the short-term. But foods do, I hold, have long-term consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Vegetarians have always claimed they get all the folic acid they need from vegetables. Well, they don't."

"meat martyrs,"

"soy is NOT a health food.... it's neither healthy nor is it food.... it's downright harmful."

Hundreds of studies have linked soy proteins and derivatives to:

* Heart disease

* Cancer, especially of the breast

* Allergies and reduced immunity

* Thyroid dysfunction

* Malnutrition and digestive problems

* Nutrient deficiencies, including calcium (vital for the prevention of osteoporosis)

* Reproductive disorders, cognitive and mental decline, and more"

"You are also not getting the truth from ... muesli munchers."

"...shortcut to the grave."

Wow, lots of rhetoric there! Strangely devoid of facts, except for the uncited 'hundreds of articles' linking nearly every affliction of man to the soybean. Meanwhile, the Chinese and Japanese seem to be getting on just fine, strangely enough.

Listen, I gave specific scientific examples of how one can get a full complement of amino acids from plant protein. So there goes the protein argument. As for animal fats, they are more hydrogenated (with higher melting temp.) than most plant fats, contributing to clogged arteries and heart disease. How is that healthy? If there is a role for animal fat in the human diet, please bring it forth, since I have heard no case for why it is so.

I'm not claiming that the vegetarian diet is "THE WAY." I love animals. They're delicious. Just had bacon this AM. All I'm saying is that YOU said vegetarians had unhealthy diets. Showing that one bean species may be bad for you doesn't translate into vegetarianism being a death sentence any more than eating a can of lard and suffering the consequences shows that people who eat meat are unhealthy. !?! Please show that animal fat or protein is an essential component of the human diet (since this was your original case). I though THAT was the issue.

The only one here who has provided any convincing evidence that meat is needed in the diet is Burgess, and vitamin B12 has nothing to do with fat OR protein.

From http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html:

"Vegans are recommended to ensure their diet includes foods fortified with vitamin B12. A range of B12 fortified foods are available. These include yeast extracts, Vecon vegetable stock, veggieburger mixes, textured vegetable protein, soya milks, vegetable and sunflower margarines, and breakfast cereals."

This issue of vitamin B12 would not apply to vegetarians eating dairy products, as there is plenty of vitamin B12 there.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burgess: You mention low protein as being an improvement, how is this beneficial to your current diet?

I follow Mike Mentzer's HIT lifting regime and can't get enough protein.

Burgess has, in case you hadn't gathered, a medical condition where his body responds badly to acid-producing foods. There's no reason to think that YOU should avoid animal proteins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cbaoth, you asked: "You mention low protein as being an improvement, how is this beneficial to your current diet?"

For me a "low protein" diet is one that starts with the minimum required for a healthy male adult (about 35 grams per day, given certain assumptions, according to my sources), and then adds 50% for safety margin. (Keep in mind that, according to what I have read, the average U. S. citizen eats about 200 grams per day -- four times the amount my doctors suggest as healthy for most adults.)

The problem I was having was called "leaky-gut syndrome." Apparently acids of some sort were leaking through the intestinal wall into the bloodstream. Two doctors told me that my immune system reaction to that produced substances that caused the "-itis" problems. They also said that even if I didn't have the leaky-gut syndrome they would still recommend only about 50 g/day of protein because very large amounts are suspects in a variety of conditions, particularly certain kinds of arthritis. I have made no further study. Going low protein (and low other acid-producing foods) worked beautifully. But, again, I have mostly my own experience and trusted testimony, with zero technical expertise.

What do you mean by "can't get enough protein"? How much are you consuming daily? Is that amount safe for long-term consumption? Do you know for a fact that you can't build muscle if you eat less than, say, 75 g/day of protein (given certain assumptions such as variety and sufficient calories)?

One doctor pointed out to me that babies -- who undergo far more body growth than typical muscle-builders -- living on human breast milk (as opposed to cow breast milk), consume only about 5% of their calories as protein. In other words, I was told, the body does not need massive amounts of protein to grow steadily over a long period of time. Is all that true? I don't know directly, but it makes sense (so far!) within the range of my experience.

The two main points I would like to make are not about the particulars of this or that, but:

1. Deciding what diet to follow is very hard to do for most of us because we don't have the direct knowledge required. We have only various forms of personal experiences and exercises in evaluating the often conflicting testimony of others who supposedly do have technical expertise.

2. We need to set aside the egalitarian myth that we are all alike. We aren't. Salt-sensitivity is a classic example. Some people seem to have almost none. On the other hand, my bloodpressure does jump up if I eat any added salt meal after meal.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what works for me. I call it, for lack of a better term, a "gatherer's diet." (By "diet" I mean a regular pattern of eating.) In volume, I now eat roughly:

- 1% animal products (1 T/day of either liver or clams).

- 49% starch (typically either roots, such as potatoes, or rice).

- 25% vegetables.

- 25% fruit.

For the first time in my life, I am healthy (so far as I know!). I attribute that mostly to improved diet: low fat, low protein, wide variety, and mostly plant foods (as little refined as practical). And now that I am healthy, I can exercise fully: typically 1 hour/day of walking, 1 hour/day of bicycling, some stair-climbing, and posture and strength exercises daily.) I exercise for both pleasure and health, the latter, again, based on my understanding and experiences.

This is impressive and inspiring. I'm curious to know what types of vegetables are in the 25% and how you prepare them..... do you eat a lot of leafy greens? Are they mostly uncooked? That's a lot of starch. This is interesting, since it so contrary to the advice of the Atkin's type folks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious to know what types of vegetables are in the 25% and how you prepare them..... do you eat a lot of leafy greens? Are they mostly uncooked? That's a lot of starch. This is interesting, since it so contrary to the advice of the Atkin's type folks!

1. I eat all kinds of vegetables -- 15 or 20 different ones each week. I can't think, off-hand, of any veg I won't eat. That doesn't mean I like them all. Brussel sprouts are a challenge, but I have learned to eat them regularly in small quantities, for example one or two a day. Yes, I eat more greens than most people, especially spinach which is high in folic acid, I'm told, and is very alkhaline-producing. I eat collard, kale, mustard greens (the hardest to make palatable).

2. I prepare them in a variety of easy quick ways: steaming in a tray of my rice-cooker; putting a bunch of different types (especially greens) in a blender with peppers and making homemade salsa to pour over rice or eating as a thick soup; and simply heating up (not cooking) mixed frozen vegs.

3. About 50% starch may seem high, but it is nonfattening -- assuming the starches are "whole" where possible. They are very filling. It is what most people put on the starches that makes their meals fattening: butter, gravy, and so forth. I have learned to find other toppings. Also, my tastes have adapted to the point where I enjoy eating a potato plain, either cold or hot.

Starches include: regular potatoes, rutabagas, turnips, sweet potatoes, yams, and gourds (such as pumpkin), as well as grains. (Among the grains, I eat only rice and corn, for now, until I do more experimenting.)

Ironically, one of the best places to find meals I can eat is at a steak house: huge baked potatoes, with chives or salsa, plus plain vegetables (that is, no cheese sauce, etc.).

Question, LT: How did you decide to eat the diet that you have chosen?

P. S. -- One of the ways I judge a proposed diet is to examine its foremost advocate, assuming he has been following his own diet for at least ten years or so. That is why I was never ever drawn to the Atkins approach. Of course, many other factors can be involved that need to be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brussel sprouts are a challenge

Question, LT: How did you decide to eat the diet that you have chosen?

Boy, tell me about it. On the brussel sprouts, that is!

Well, my diet is influenced by my taste preferences, what I think is healthy, my budget, and of course, the lack of will to cut out what I know is unhealthy :) I don't think my diet is all that healthy, but it's better than most. I eat a moderate portion of meat about 3-4 times per week, usually chicken or beef. I like pasta a lot but try to limit my intake to one or twice weekly. Breads are always whole grain. In fact, I enjoy baking my own bread, which contains oatmeal, whole wheat flour, wheat germ, milk, and flax seed for omega 3 acids. I drink almost no soft drinks: milk and water, with 1-2 cups of coffee daily. As for the plant kingdom, I eat mostly apples in winter as they are cheap locally. I just got northern spy apples today, and this type lasts most of the winter. Root veggies and other winter veggies this time of year (squash, etc.). In the summer I eat vegetables that are locally grown (which includes pretty much everything) because they taste better and are cheap. I guess now that I think of it, my diet is influenced partly by my budget, since I am a student!

I'm kind of addicted to dairy (milk and yogurt), which I'm not sure is the best thing. I try to limit my cheese intake, though. I like butter and creamy sauces, which are bad. I like baked goods, too!

That's a lot of good advice there. Thanks!

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, lots of rhetoric there! Strangely devoid of facts, except for the uncited 'hundreds of articles' linking nearly every affliction of man to the soybean. Meanwhile, the Chinese and Japanese seem to be getting on just fine, strangely enough.

It is a well known fact that soy products are a staple in many vegetarian diets. It's also a well known fact in some informed circles that soy is harmful when ingested.

Dangers of Soy in diet:

http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/index.htm

Soy alert:

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html

Soy Online Service:

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, I gave specific scientific examples of how one can get a full complement of amino acids from plant protein.

It rested on arguments for survival, not for thriving.

Paleolithic man ate meat, fruits, and vegetables as his sources of food, while most of our evolutionary adaptions related to diet were underwent. Those who did not die of accidents and wound related infections lived on average to nearly 70, at a time before medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "can't get enough protein"? How much are you consuming daily? Is that amount safe for long-term consumption? Do you know for a fact that you can't build muscle if you eat less than, say, 75 g/day of protein (given certain assumptions such as variety and sufficient calories)?

One doctor pointed out to me that babies -- who undergo far more body growth than typical muscle-builders -- living on human breast milk (as opposed to cow breast milk), consume only about 5% of their calories as protein. In other words, I was told, the body does not need massive amounts of protein to grow steadily over a long period of time. Is all that true? I don't know directly, but it makes sense (so far!) within the range of my experience.

The reason why we can't compare a baby's nutritional needs to a full grown adult human's is because they have enormously different growing processes and hormonal profiles in place.

I know the information regarding protein intake for weight training individuals, if anyone here is interested. Peter Lemon, Tempolsky, et al. did a study on healthy adult men undergoing weight training. Muscle biopsies were performed, and it was determined that 0.77-0.82 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight was needed to maintain a nitrogen balance. The goal of someone trying to gain muscle is nitrogen retention, so more is needed to gain muscle.

Tarnopolsky et al. 1992 did a study in healthy weight training men that determined that a ceiling is reached at 2.6g/kg (protein/bodyweight) for muscle growth; 1.8-2.0g/kg being the most effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a well known fact that soy products are a staple in many vegetarian diets.

Fine! And they will continue to be because the soybean has been cultivated for such purposed for 3100 years and it is a cheap source of protein. Soy products provide people with essential amino acids, but there is no reason these amino acids couldn't be attained from kidney beans, chickpeas, peanuts, lentils, or any other number of legumes.

Just because most people might like chicken doesn't mean that's the only meat out there for meat eaters to eat. Same for tofu and the "muesli munchers."

You have still not addressed the issue of why animal protein and fat are needed in the human diet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have still not addressed the issue of why animal protein and fat are needed in the human diet.

You continue to focus on what is needed, rather than what is optimal. If we are talking about humans who are not sedentary, then avoiding post-agricultural grains, soy, and other lentils is positive--as these carbohydrates have been implicated in syndrome X.

Please see:

Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century1,2

Loren Cordain, S Boyd Eaton, Anthony Sebastian, Neil Mann, Staffan Lindeberg, Bruce A Watkins, James H O’Keefe and Janette Brand-Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue to focus on what is needed, rather than what is optimal. If we are talking about humans who are not sedentary, then avoiding post-agricultural grains, soy, and other lentils is positive--as these carbohydrates have been implicated in syndrome X.

Please see:

Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century1,2

Loren Cordain, S Boyd Eaton, Anthony Sebastian, Neil Mann, Staffan Lindeberg, Bruce A Watkins, James H O’Keefe and Janette Brand-Miller

This is simply a semantical problem. In a biological sense, needed and optimal are the same. Cells need a lot of essential nutrients to survive: organisms may still live with nutrient deficiencies, but this is not what I mean by needed. You are right: those organisms are living but not thriving. When I say needed, I mean optimal. I mean thriving. All I'm asking is, "Why is meat optimal???" Can anyone please answer this question without pointing to another source? Can someone please sum up and provide a concrete fact? I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you guys to back up your claims with facts.

Again, showing that certain vegetable products (soy, certain grains, legumes, or the whole darn plant kingdom!) have harmful chemicals does not, in and of itself, make the omnivorous diet better! There is no perfect food. I can find a harmful chemical in anything. We all know that I diet solely of soy, or solely of meat, is no good for us. There are a balance of essential building blocks needed that are provided by a host of organisms from which we choose to eat. My contention is that plants or fungi provide all of these essential building blocks (yeast in the case of vitamin B12). Your contention is that they do not. Please explain to me what is found in meat that is optimal for humans. You keep speaking of it as if it is common knowledge, but it is not common knowledge to me.

The answer to my question is to point to what in meat is good that cannot be found in vegetables. It is NOT to keep asserting that some vegetable products are bad, therefore a solely veggie diet is not optimal. This argument makes no sense. It would be akin to me proving that something in beef is bad, and therefore eating chicken is bad, too. Therefore, we should supplement our diet with vegetables to make up for what is "missing" in meat (even though I have not proved that anything is missing in meat!) Can no one please answer this question of why meat is optimal and what is found in it which cannot be found in the plant kingdom (or, in the case of vitamin B12, in yeast)?

Although it might seem so, I am really not trying to be difficult. I just really want to know what is in meat that makes humans healthier than they would otherwise be on a solely veggie diet that provided the right amino acids (for protein) and fatty acids (for lipids). If it is so obvious, do tell, please, and I will relent on this issue.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is simply a semantical problem. In a biological sense, needed and optimal are the same. Cells need a lot of essential nutrients to survive: organisms may still live with nutrient deficiencies, but this is not what I mean by needed. You are right: those organisms are living but not thriving. When I say needed, I mean optimal. I mean thriving. All I'm asking is, "Why is meat optimal???" Can anyone please answer this question without pointing to another source? Can someone please sum up and provide a concrete fact? I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you guys to back up your claims with facts.

This has basically something to do with how the human diet evolved. It mainly consisted of meat plus some vegetables, nuts, berries. Humans adapted to this sort of diet. They rely on the overall nutrient composition of this sort of diet. That's why vegetarians need a special source of B12 and need to take care of this. If you eat meat you don't have that problem. You also have no iron deficiencies, something which is also common for vegetarians.

Your point is mainly that you can emulate this nutrient composition using only plant food. Yes, you can do this to a very high degree. But you need to know a lot of science and eat a lot of weird stuff to do so. Eating meat makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. It can be emulated with the help of plant food, but this is only possible because of technology and agriculture. And given that we don't know everything about medicine, yet (which may be a wild assumption), it looks like eating meat is the healthiest alternative.

Anthropologists find out if man lived before or after the beginning of agriculture just by looking at the bones of their findings. If they are less dense and shorter, then the person they found lived within the last 10.000 years. It is always said that agriculture was a logical step for man, but it clearly wasn't for health reasons.

As far as I see it, the reason for eating meat is the relation of macronutrients in your final diet. You need a certain level of protein in your diet so you don't wreck havoc with your hormone system. I think you are very able to dismiss any of my claims by showing how some plant food contains this nutrient and the other plant food contains that nutrient and how you can mix it all up. I won't be able to refute anything of this. One of the reasons is: you study biology and I don't. I have not very much knowledge of chemistry, either.

But it just makes sense that if man evolved to eat meat, he should continue to do so.

This is why I stopped being a vegetarian and started eating meat. I once believed that man was a vegetarian by nature, but I was wrong. There is clear evidence that there is a positive feedback loop between eating meat, decreasing gut size (allowed by incorporating more meat in the diet) and increasing brain size and hand/tool use in humans. All three effects went hand in hand and increased each other until a stupid monkey who happened to enter the prairie happened to become what is known today as homo sapiens.

Man was so meat-loving he even hunted for other carnivores and ate their meat. There were tremendous findings of giant cave bear remainings showing human tooth prints proving that man hunted this bear species to extinction to eat its flesh. This sort of behavior is -as far as I know it- unknown in the rest of the animal kingdom. Carnivores usually hunt vegetarians. :D

The first acts of human intelligence were shown in hunting. In developing weapons. Findings of early human weapons next to animal remainings intrigued the interest of anthropologist who wondered how well-crafted these weapons were. So they tried to create these weapons themselves using the tools available to these ancient men. After over 10 years of trying they had to stop it because they miserably failed. They lacked the crafting skills of our early ancestors. And these were weapons which were left behind with dead prey, which means that they must have been easy to be reproduced.

If there ever was a carnivore on earth, it was man. And 10.000 years of agriculture won't change this.

That's why I eat meat, consider it healthy and consider any breach with this principle a step backward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I certainly see the sense in evolutionary arguments, assuming you have your facts straight!

Nonetheless, Homo sapiens is evolving now culturally, much more than biologically. In fact, it's too bad our bodies can't keep up with our minds!

I eat meat, too, but only because it tastes good, not because I think I need it. Same reason I eat brownies and other sugary stuff! I think the reason that vegetarianism works for people is because we live in a global, or at least, regional economy. Certainly in a part of the world where you weren't able to grow legumes, you would have had to get your protein elsewhere. And even though Native Americans ate squash, corn and beans (which should have provided complete protein), they still ate meat.

But, we now know scientifically that we can find all the essential nutrients in plants (and fungi, in the case of vitamin B12) it is no longer necessary to be constrained by our evolutionary past, unless, as you say, there is something there that is needed there that we just don't know about. But that should be proved scientifically, and I think we know much more about the functioning of the human body that we do about other aspects of biology.

Plant products account for about 80% of the mass of food eaten by humans worldwide. They are incredibly important, and humans have been cultivating plants for the past 10,000 years. In fact, most of these cultivated species no longer even exist in the wild.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, we now know scientifically that we can find all the essential nutrients in plants (and fungi, in the case of vitamin B12) it is no longer necessary to be constrained by our evolutionary past, unless, as you say, there is something there that is needed there that we just don't know about. But that should be proved scientifically, and I think we know much more about the functioning of the human body that we do about other aspects of biology.

This may be right, but my question is: Why? Why not eat meat and instead use all the science-knowledge you have to eat something that resembles the diet of a carnivore? It's not very economical in terms of the use of your time. And I doubt that even with full effort you get all of it right as you get certain nutrients only in certain proportions in plant food. There is no pure Vitamin C or B12 or whatever-plant out there. There is a multitude of nutrients in every plant and you have to take that into your calculations and you have to completely know what a human body needs. There is so much change in the area of dietary advice that this sometimes seems more like a fashion thing than a science. How do you know if your body needs coconut oil or if it is just a fad? You have to study it to get it right and you might make a mistake somewhere. So you do everything a normal carnivore does just by himself and spend half of your day doing research for it without getting the results he gets. Why? Besides, as Inspector so simply and truthfully stated, meat tastes better than any substitute yet found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...